Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:61463 Court No. - 65 Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 13454 of 2025 Applicant :- Deepak Opposite Party :- State Of U.P. And 3 Others Counsel for Applicant :- Ram Shiromani Yadav Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A. Hon'ble Krishan Pahal,J. 1. List has been revised. As informed by learned AGA, notice to the informant has been served on 11.04.2025 but none is present on behalf of the informant. 2. Supplementary affidavit filed today by the learned counsel for the applicant is taken on record. 3. Heard Sri Ram Shiromani Yadav, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Pranshu Kumar, learned A.G.A. for the State and also perused the material placed on record. 4. Applicant seeks bail in Case Crime No. 136 of 2025, under Sections 137(2), 87, 65(1) of BNS and Sections 5L/6 of POCSO Act, Police Station - Kathghar, District - Moradabad, during the pendency of trial. 5. Learned counsel for the applicant has argued that the applicant is absolutely innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. He has nothing to do with the said offence as alleged in the FIR. The FIR is delayed by about four days and there is no explanation of the said delay caused. 6. Learned counsel has also stated that the victim is the consenting party as is evident from her statement recorded u/s 183 BNSS. The victim by her looks seems to be major although as per her high school certificate, her date of birth is 15.04.2009, as such, her age has come out to be marginally less than 16 years. It is stated that with respect to the age of the victim, a leverage of two years may be granted to the applicant on upper side in light of law laid down by Supreme Court. There is no medical corroboration of the incident. 7. Learned counsel has further stated that the applicant has no criminal history. He is languishing in jail since 12.03.2025 and he is ready to cooperate with trial. In case, the applicant is released on bail, he will not misuse the liberty of bail. 8. Per contra, learned AGA has vehemently opposed the bail application but unable to dispute the submissions raised by the learned counsel for the applicant and also the fact that the applicant has no criminal history. 9. The date of birth of the victim as per high school certificate is 15.04.2009, as such, she may be considered major in light of the judgement of Supreme Court passed in Sushil Kumar vs. Rakesh Kumar, (2003) 8 SCC 673, wherein it has been opined that it is more often in the Indian Society that person shows the age of their wards much below than their actual age. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the evidence on record, and taking into consideration the settled law of the Supreme Court passed in Satender Kumar Antil vs. Central Bureau of Investigation and Ors., 2022 INSC 690 and Manish Sisodia vs. Directorate of Enforcement, 2024 INSC 595 and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the Court is of the view that the applicant has made out a case for bail. The bail application is allowed. 11. Let the applicant- Deepak, who is involved in aforementioned case crime be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two sureties each in the like amount to the satisfaction of the court concerned subject to following conditions. Further, before issuing the release order, the sureties be verified. i) The applicant will not tamper with the evidence during trial. ii) The applicant will not pressurise/intimidate with the prosecution witnesses. iii) The applicant will appear before the trial court on the date fixed. 12. In case of breach of any of the above conditions, it shall be a ground for cancellation of bail. 13. It is made clear that observations made in granting bail to the applicant shall not in any way affect the learned trial Judge in forming his independent opinion based on the testimony of the witnesses. Order Date:- 23.4.2025 Siddhant (Justice Krishan Pahal) Digitally signed by :- SIDDHANT SAHU High Court of Judicature at Allahabad